Digitized Koffee: Lush is selectively quitting social media, can you?
By NICK KOSSOVAN on December 2, 2021.
Last week, Lush Cosmetics announced removing themselves from four major social media platforms, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok. They claim they’re, protesting the “serious effects” social media has on users’ mental health and wellbeing. Ironically their announcement garnered them plenty of free publicity in the traditional sense. “We wouldn’t ask our customers to meet us down a dark and dangerous alleyway – but some social media platforms are beginning to feel like places no one should be encouraged to go,” the retailer wrote. Lush, which has 240 stores across Canada and the U.S., said it’ll remain off the platforms until they ensure a safer environment for users. They’re calling their “boycott” their Global Anti-Social Media Policy. However, they’re staying on Pinterest, Twitter, and YouTube, thus not 100% removing themselves from having a social media presence. Lush’s timing is suspect. Sticking with Twitter makes me wonder if their Global Anti-Social Media Policy is just a pre-holiday PR stunt. Twitter literally doesn’t have any filter. People can easily share misinformation, disinformation, hate speech, inappropriate content, etc., which stays on the platform until reported. On the surface, Lush’s decision is both principled and brave. However, I’m sure Lush questioned the ROI of their social media spend against their bottom line before “taking a stand” against social media’s harmful effects. Mark Constantine, Lush’s co-founder and CEO, must have decided the ROI from Pinterest, Twitter and YouTube outweighed taking a stance against all social media platforms tolerating toxic behaviour. As long as a platform serves Lush’s bottom-line, they’ll stick with them. Am I suggesting that Lush selectively “quitting social media” is a business move? Of course, it is! Why else would they stay on some social platforms and not others when all platforms are toxic to a certain degree. It’s always business profits before taking an ethical stand. Therefore, brands tend to virtue signal; there’s no real risk doing so, with the upside of enhancing the brand’s image amongst the naïve. Lush isn’t really quitting social media; they’re trying to portray as if they are. The headline of their press release: “Lush Cosmetics to Deactivate Global Social Media Accounts”. Unless you’re a hardcore e-commerce site like Amazon, eBay or Walmart (estimated number of monthly visitors: 468.96 million), social media usually isn’t an efficient sales channel. Social media is great for increasing brand awareness. However, accurately tracking new sales from social media platforms is a near impossibility. Vanity metrics such as ‘likes’ and ‘comments’ don’t necessarily result in sales. I’m still waiting for a brand to show how much a “like” influences their bottom line. Undeniably social media has proven not to be great for our collective mental health. People don’t congregate on social media because of brands. They do so because of their dire need to be accepted or admired. People use social media in the unhealthiest way possible; trying to gauge whether their peers and community accept or reject them. Tribalism is the nature of social media. Lush selectively avoiding specific social media platforms isn’t a significant step toward decreasing the toxic nature of social media platforms. All social media platforms tolerate toxic behaviour. Lush hasn’t offered any concrete solutions on how to mitigate, if not eradicate, the toxicity appearing on social media sites. Tackling the issue will require a collective effort between lawmakers, associations, sociologists, social media companies and those who hold the money social media companies depend on – brands. Like climate change, it’s too late for minor acts. Major action (READ: drastic) is needed. In July, I wrote an article entitled, “Will social media companies ever make fighting online abuse a priority?” I offered several suggestions on how social media companies can reduce toxic behaviour on their platforms. One solution I proposed is requiring credit card and/or phone number authentication to create a social media account. This would prevent anonymous accounts from being created. Social media users, knowing they can easily be traced, will therefore rein in their toxic behaviour. Every social media platform relies on advertising revenue for survival and being profitable. Eyeballs are what keep social media free for you and me. Having as many eyeballs as possible is why social media companies accept toxicity within their respective “user guidelines” to exist on their platform. Toxic behaviour is a cost-effective way for social media companies to attract and hold our attention. As someone once said, “If it’s free, then you are the product.” Who among us doesn’t like aggressive theatrics morphing into a flame war of insults, labelling and accusations, all in futile attempts to prove the other person wrong? Has insulting someone or calling them a “racist” ever changed their mind? Then there’s the lack of discussion regarding algorithms designed to prioritize sensationalized content over mundane content, so anything that encourages debate is presented to the masses. Why? Because this type of content creates arguments in the comments section, which counts as “engagement.” What’s the likelihood that more companies walk away from social media – or all social media? (Not just selectively as Lush has done.) I’m not holding my breath. We’re unable to unite to face obvious dangers such as climate change. The damage caused, particularly to the emotional development of adolescents, by social media is Machiavellian in nature and therefore not widely accepted as being factual. In contrast, social media companies and brands have self-serving financial agendas worth unimaginable billions. What’s never talked about is social media usage being a choice and user responsibility. Attention and reaction are a choice. We’re choosing to chase emotions on digital platforms, giving social media companies the eyeballs, they need to attract advertisers. Nick Kossovan, a self-described connoisseur of human psychology, writes about what’s on his mind from Toronto. You can follow Nick on Twitter and Instagram @NKossovan. 18-17
